Comparing the Comprehensibility of Personality Measures Used to Measure New Diagnostic Approaches to Personality Disorders.
Saved in:
| Title: | Comparing the Comprehensibility of Personality Measures Used to Measure New Diagnostic Approaches to Personality Disorders. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Ghosh, Ashmita (AUTHOR), Phillips, Nathaniel L. (AUTHOR), Van Til, Kaela (AUTHOR), Lynam, Donald R. (AUTHOR), Miller, Joshua D. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Journal of Personality Assessment. Nov/Dec2025, Vol. 107 Issue 6, p687-696. 10p. |
| Subjects: | Personality disorders, Personality assessment, Psychological tests, Diagnosis, Introspection, Readability formulas, Scientific observation, Personality |
| Abstract: | In the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), an Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) was proposed that considers the severity of impairment in personality functioning (Criterion A) and elevations in five pathological personality traits (Criterion B) as the primary diagnostic criteria. The present study examined whether self-report measures of personality impairment are longer, more complex, difficult, and require more introspection than items from measures of pathological personality traits. Participants from two undergraduate university research pools (N = 460) completed two measures of personality impairment and one measure of pathological personality traits. For all measures, participants rated item difficulty and introspection needed to answer each item. Additionally, the study compared the readability statistics of each measure automatically calculated by Microsoft Word. Results indicated that personality trait measures were significantly easier to read than personality impairment measures, and that answering personality trait items required less perceived introspection compared to personality impairment items; however, no significant differences were found in the perceived difficulty of items across measures. These results provide the first empirical examination of differences between personality trait and impairment measures in terms of readability statistics and participant perceptions of difficulty of items and required introspection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Personality Assessment is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | In the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), an Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) was proposed that considers the severity of impairment in personality functioning (Criterion A) and elevations in five pathological personality traits (Criterion B) as the primary diagnostic criteria. The present study examined whether self-report measures of personality impairment are longer, more complex, difficult, and require more introspection than items from measures of pathological personality traits. Participants from two undergraduate university research pools (N = 460) completed two measures of personality impairment and one measure of pathological personality traits. For all measures, participants rated item difficulty and introspection needed to answer each item. Additionally, the study compared the readability statistics of each measure automatically calculated by Microsoft Word. Results indicated that personality trait measures were significantly easier to read than personality impairment measures, and that answering personality trait items required less perceived introspection compared to personality impairment items; however, no significant differences were found in the perceived difficulty of items across measures. These results provide the first empirical examination of differences between personality trait and impairment measures in terms of readability statistics and participant perceptions of difficulty of items and required introspection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00223891 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/00223891.2025.2491491 |
